Support our channel. Try InVideo AI for FREE here: invideo.io/i/ArvinAsh This will save you hundreds of dollars that you would otherwise spend on editing, animating and other production costs.
I can not understand the following in the Rutherford experiment, please help me if you can. Which material he used as fluorescent which lights up with alpha particles/Helium? Why are we not using them to detect alpha particles? How did he manage to make the alpha particles to eject like a laser in a narrow beam?
You said the strong force is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism at the nucleon binding scale... Is it more than just coincidence that that's 1 over the fine constant? Does the fine constant somehow determine the crossover distance between electronmagnetic dominance and strong force dominance?
A bit of Blake came to mind while watching this fascinating video: “ “To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour”
You have rescued Arvin's video from the dust bin of boring click-bait material. A wonderful quote. You have demonstrated a very open and compassionate interpretation of this steaming pile of 'trying the viewer's patience.'
"The Church of the Children of Atom is based on the idea that each single atomic mass contains within it an entire universe!" - Confessor Cromwell (Fallout 3)
Given the title, I was expecting some wild-hair explanation of cosmic scale. Imagine my - pleasant - surprise when you embarked on a succinct history of atoms that melded seamlessly with a clear description of sub-atomic particles as we know them today, then blending into quantum physics. Very nice!
Great video! Thank you for putting it together… it reminded me (and taught me) a few new things. Thank you and your team for educating the masses you are doing a great job!
Every single one of Arvin Ash's video starts off on a subject that I have heard and seen countless times before in many other videos, but without a single exception, Arvin Ash always introduces new (new to me, I mean) ideas in physics that I have not heard of before or considered before. For example, YOU are the ONLY science communicator I have found so far who asks the question "Why is the weak force called a force?" I have long wanted an answer to that question. And I never knew that beta decay is less common than alpha decay, let alone much less common. Bravo!
What is amazing is that we've proved atoms exist, the outside of it is a cloud of electron/s and the core has gluons and quarks. This is mind-bogglingly amazing. Shout out to Cern.
@noelstarchild I agree, it's truly amazing we've figured out so many specific aspects. With still lots more to uncover. You describe a "cloud of electron/s" around an atomic nucleus. To clarify, there's no such cloud. People hold onto this false image, but electron locations correctly are described by a *_probability cloud,_* not a physical cloud. This makes it harder to visualize, because now it's accepted that each electron "pops-in" and "-out" of a location, and doesn't move linearly from one location to another within its valence shell. They don't "fly through" 3D space. They move through 4D space (3D+time), making them seem to disappear/reappear.
We also learn about the association between the bosons. How important are they? Atoms also connect with the universe via its influence on gravity as they mass together in space.
@@keep-ukraine-free how is that different? What is a “probability cloud”? Vs whatever you said it replaced? Whatever you do for an electron in an atom doesn’t work for a quark in a nucleon.
@@DrDeuteron"Whatever you do for an electron in an atom doesn’t work for a quark in a nucleon." Why not? The behaviour of quarks in nucleons is ruled by a different force, true, but both can be described by quantum field theories.
What can’t be inside the atom but exists on the macroscopic universe: - Navier-Stokes equations: governing fluid dynamics - Fluid Mechanics - Ohm’s Law Everything else may have microscopic-realm equivalents (I just don’t know if all of them would eventually happen inside an atom)
You're on the right path IMO. This idea of an atom being a universe is universally stupid. It's academic only, that is to say an unimportant flight of fancy, or the second definition of academic.
Instead of downright accepting or rejecting an idea let's try to keep an open mind. After all as a human civilization we have barely scratched the surface of the knowledge about atoms and subatomic particles. What we have are mathematical models that fit the data points. But true knowledge and mechanism of how it all works still eludes us.
Instead of downright accepting or rejecting an idea let's try to keep an open mind. After all as a human civilization we have barely scratched the surface of the knowledge about atoms and subatomic particles. What we have are mathematical models that fit the data points. But true knowledge and mechanism of how it all works still eludes us.
Building something that can move at the speed of light would gain so much mass it would turn itself inside out. To break free from the boundaries of our universe we would have to make something that could expand but if were to use it, this means we would have to destroy this one to get too the next. The best and effective plan would be to live in harmony with the world we live within.
@@b00ts4ndc4ts Only if relativity is a complete description, and it's not that's why there are singularities. Now what is wrong with it is beyond me, so spare me the " you think you're smarter einstein quips."
I've been saying as much ever since I was a kid, comparing the solar system to an atom and using it as a representative model that exactly fits the form
Our whole mind runs on analogies. It’s amazing the level of analogies we have to explain the world around us. There’s all these maths to understand, yet everything is easiest to explained as an apple, or as a color, or something that is relative to our understanding.
Supremely explained workings of the inner workings of an atom, just mind-blowing Arvin as my brain is still picking up the pieces..... now that you've so eloquently explained the inner working of an atom including the sub-atomic world, we just now need a explained and written formula 'with visuals' of how general relativity and quantum physics the two fundamental theories in physics and best describing the different scales of the universe work together in one simple sum and equation!
Fantastic work Arvin. University level stuff here. My only gripe would be there is so much here and you could break these down into smaller bite sizes and really nail the focus of these videos-like have a whole 15 min vid on gluons and strong force. Overall, amazing work.
@ absolutely. I’ve started my own channel and like the 10-15 min segments. Maybe do a whole section on sub atomic particles. I believe there are 17 confirmed? Would be cool to break down gluons, quarks, and even hypothetical particles like tachyons.
@@ArvinAshI have thought for some time that the Science Communicators on YT should do exactly as OP said - theres so much ‘good stuff’ in videos like this, too much really. It can be overwhelming, and I am sure we only retain a fraction of it. I would love to see videos breaking this down into smaller chunks and really hammering home on one or two points. For me personally, I prefer the longer videos, and hearing the same thing explained in different ways is good too as everyone has different learning styles. Thats my 2 cents - love your videos - your animations are great 👍🏼
I'm pretty sure he has videos on all these concepts from earlier in his videography, everything I saw in this video I feel like I've seen covered by previous videos, just go watch everything he's ever posted 😂 it's worth it
@@sachiekat1238 Yes, I have a detailed video on all these concepts. What I didn't have is ONE video that goes over all the concepts at a higher level. That was the purpose of this video - to put everything together in a one (hopefully) succinct video.
Great question. They do annihilate eventually. But for the most part, they last long enough for the strong nuclear force to take effect. This is why this force works only at very small distances. Certain charged pions last longer than neutral one. But they all eventually decay. I made a couple of videos looking at the details of how the strong force works if you're interested in learning more.
"why doesn't the meson imdiately anhiliate itself when coming into contact with its anti particle counter part ?" Huh? At 11:47 in the video, there is only a meson, no anti-meson is seen anywhere.
It's funny that I've given this exact lecture to friends before watching this video 😂 It's amazing to me that everything is mostly empty space and that even the mass of everything is mostly just the energy from the strong force. I love to see people's eyes as they understand this! 🤯
true. it's all relative. But there is nothing that's "outside" the known universe. Even outside the visible universe, there would be just more universe.
@@ArvinAsh Nobody can be sure about "there is nothing outside our universe". There might be much bigger forces and bodies out there, besides "similar" universes like ours.
The thing I don't understand about the strong nuclear force and the exchange of gluons, at least based on the visualization you're showing of little 'balls' bouncing back and forth between quarks. It would seem like the kinetic energy of 'little balls' bouncing back and forth would actually push the quarks apart instead of pulling them together. If I throw a ball at an object, the kinetic energy of the ball would push the object away from my, not pull it toward me. So it's really hard to wrap my head around that this is how it works at the subatomic scale.
That's an excellent observation and question. The main thing you have to realize is that just like the role of photons as carriers of the electromagnetic force, gluons as carries of the strong force are VIRTUAL particles. This means that they cannot be directly observed or measured like REAL particles. They exist only momentarily, and serve to exchange color charges, just like virtual photons serve to exchange electromagnetic charges. So they are not exchanging momentum, only charges. Charge exchange is what creates an attractive force in quantum mechanics - whether that force is electromagnetic or strong force. In addition, while we use "little ball-like" objects to illustrate gluons and photons, they are not literally balls. They are quantum waves.
@@ArvinAsh Interesting. Thanks for the reply and explanation. That does make a little more sense, but still hard for me to wrap my head around. Cheers!
@@ArvinAsh "So they are not exchanging momentum" Why not? Virtual photons (and gluons) carry momentum, too. "just like virtual photons serve to exchange electromagnetic charges ... Charge exchange is what creates an attractive force in quantum mechanics - whether that force is electromagnetic or strong force." Huh? So you say that a positron and an electron attract each other because photons exchange charge between the two?! What is that even supposed to mean? Do you want to imply that the charges of the electron and the positron changes each time they exchange a photon?
Lol. I get where you're coming from. I feel it's great for people who don't have the resources to make the kinds of videos we do. I feel it's coming whether we like it or not, so why not promote the best platforms for it, like InVideo? It's really good for short videos on certain subjects. Try it out and let me know what you think. I was impressed so I don't mind promoting a good product.
This is where the true strength and value of AI shines. It allows the single person to have the skills and capabilities of an entire production team composed of thousands, each with various skill sets. Even way above average looks and way above average speaking skills becomes available to the single person, even allowing an individual to possess artistic skills that only exist in the top hundredth of the top one percent of humans living today. Not possible right now but soon the true creative genius of a person can be accomplished if the person strives and uses the tools that will be available. This is the side of AI where true productivity will blossom and costs be driven down. It also probably means that selectivity will ratchet upwards as only the sublime will be accepted and lesser productions will be eschewed. Still millions of people striving for the sublime will mean the very best will be rewarded, with lesser rewards being bestowed upon the second runner up and so on.
"Oh no the machines are taking peoples jobs" AGAIN. It's because we use the tech we have, like the machines in every assembly line and factory, that people are freed up to do other specialized jobs and that we even got here in the first place. All I hear with complaints about AI is that we should still be using human labor to plow fields instead of tractors 🤦
@ArvinAsh don't think anyone should be making these kinds of videos without hiring fact checkers and experts, and the idea of promoting a cheap, fast, expert-free way to make pseudoscientidic videos that will make it impossible for legitimate videos to be viewed is the exact problem with TH-cam and AI in general. Not to mention the ethics of training their models videos like those uploaded here without the creator's consent.
@@mattdangerg The data used to train AI models being copyright material is already beginning to come up in lawsuits and is being looked at closely for the procedures used and the outcomes. Still people are very judgemental and sloppy production will not be rewarded with views, subscriptions, or likes. The cream always rises to the top in the end.
Electrons absorbing photons is weird don't you think? Think about it, photons are moving really fast and electrons are really small, do they "capture" photons somehow? if not wouldn't most photons just be gone forever? what is the mechanism behind this? Is it "pulling" the electron out?
Photons are quantized electromagnetic radiation. So the electromagnetic wave comes and passes through the electron. The electron is accelerated by the electromagnetic wave, and consequently emits its own electromagnetic wave. It turns out that the electromagnetic wave from the electron is most likely to be in precisely opposite phase to the incident electromagnetic wave. There's the "photon disappears" part of absorption.
@@takisk.7698The photon is a point particle and an electron is really small so the likelihood the photon hits the electron in a traditional physical way is very low. I think that is what the original comment meant.
@@MrCoffisPhotons really aren't point particles like electrons. Photons are waves. A wave of the electromagnetic field. It's only when a measurement device like an eye (an eye made of atoms...all of which have electrons ready and waiting to be engaged) that a propagating spherical EM wave (photon) finally comes into contact with an electron in said object that the wave collapses into a point. No electron, no collapse, no point. The bulk of a photon's life is comprised of it being a wave. Looking at only its state upon death can lead many people astray. Its active life of carrying energy as a wave is what's of vital import. An electron doesn't really absorb a photon. It's not like an electron subsumes a photon and therein becomes (for some brief, short time) a composite entity. The electron just responds to and facilitates the incoming energy of the photon.
@@MrCoffis I'm must correct you, sorry. I'm a theoretical physicist with a main focus on astrophysics, chaos theory and Holography. 1st: An electron is most of all a field around the nucleus. And light is first and foremost a wave/field. You simply can't use classical thinking about photons and electrons. Their interaction is first and foremost governed by their interferent co-inciding frequencies. You simply can't reduce electrons to a point particle. In reality electrons and their orbits should be looked upon as "layers of onion" around the nucleus. And you also can't use a quantized definition regarding light. It only behaves as a photon when we measure it. This is also one of the fundamental properties that makes lux v constant. You simply can't measure a *field* of light to determine its speed or position if you don't know the source. Light is spherical by definition, so light emitted from a sun is *everywhere*at once, not causally localized to a "beam of light". Light behaves in counterintuitive ways, that is why Einstein was so revolutionary, because no one understood the causality of light propagation properly before him. 2nd: Light=wave=frequency hits the electron shell(s) and excites them and the inherent properties of the material will determine the energy release speed and the amount of energy that will be returned to the system. Light excites electrons, which is a field itself. Fundamentally, we should stop using point analogies in physics. It's only relevant when we need to learn about properties in physicality. When you understand that all particles, all energy, all phenomena, all polarities and even space itself = holographic - thus made of light - you will get deeper insights into physics and math that is well beyond classical and even QM/QFT, because they are also ultimately functions of holographic principles. v=d-(t³c³) 6.25 Hexyocto Hz 0.00087Vp/0.38 Zs HH HtH PQE RtV HyH EAHT/HP If you want to know more what this is, I'd be happy to post you a 4 parter that will literally blow your mind. In the best possible way. 💫💫💃🐬❤️🐬💃💫💫
i think we should call the four fundamental forces as four fundamental properties of matter. it gives more meaning about the force rather than misunderstanding it with physical push pull force. 🤔
Katho Upanishad verse 20 - "sanskrit "Anoh aniyan - Mahato mahiyan" translated as Finer than the fine, huger than the huge the Self hides in the secret heart
To make matters worse I just learned the math involved in the probabilities of where an electron wave form is located, allows the electron wave form to be as close to the atom as the plank length and still possible to be as far as hundreds, thousands, or millions of light years away and still be part of the atom. Of course the probabilities of the electron wave form being that far away grows infinitesimally smaller as the distance increases. Still even being possible shatters my little bitty mind.
put your mind back together, because the electron cannot be a gazillion ly away. Yes, the standard atomic wave functions are non-zero at those distances (roughly 1/exp(10^28)), but those are non-relativistic approximations that don't work at those ranges.
I would love for someone to untangle which particle really exists as "we can observe them doing stuff" and invented particles like "they have to exist, otherwise our math wont work out".
Try and remember that the math always works, as in 100% of the time. When folks say the math doesn't work, what they mean is. "My math is not predicting what I see, but the math itself it's flawless." Take the geocentric theory of the universe, the math worked flawlessly, despite the theory being 100% wrong. We navigated the entire globe thinking it was the center universe, we predicted false orbits around the earth the same way. When the observation's didn't conform over the generations, we added new math, claimed it as a discovery, and declared geocentrism "saved" Another way to sort of wrap your head around this concept is to look at video games. In video games physics is a suggestion. Mario can control his trajectory in mid air, gravity is also variable for him, etc... The math behind mario's physics is 100% correct, however; in reality gravity doesn't work the way it does for mario, but the math that describes his gravity is 100% correct, as all math is.
I used to wonder if every time there is fire/an explosion of any kind (fireworks, lighting a match, etc) we are creating Big Bangs and mini universes. The thing burns out quickly for us, as observers of our world, but maybe the scale is "different" for those things "created" by it.
Pointing out that the universe isn't an atom seems sensible enough. Are you implying that it is, as the thumbnail text unambiguously claims? What part of the video supports that claim?
Size is just a matter of perspective. The entire universe is just an Atom... and another big bang might be just around the corner. You never when everything will explode and become ridiculously huge.
@@d.c.9012Sponsors are better for the content creator than ads injected by youtube. High quality content like this channel is expensive to produce, like he said in the sponsor message. If you like getting content like this for free, thank the content creator's sponsors for that.
I'm not joking when I say I've had this theory every since I read an Arthur C Clarke collection of short stories in 1988. The Universe is a Fractal Atom
Every video by every science communication channel, every single one, has at least one or two comments that pop up immediately after a video comes out. *strokes chin thoughtfully... "Ah yes, I see that my theory (that I came up with while watching the Outer Limits) has been proven to be correct. I had always hypothesized this to my various doubters, but they didn't believe me. Now I am proven correct." 🤣
@@Deletiriumagreed, felt it, seen it, laughed at it, at myself, and past all that - still love that it happens to me and in general. Keeps us engaged.
The video is good.. However, the mention of Bohr model is missing in the chronology of atom model definitions over the years.. It was Bohr's model, based on quantum hypothesis by Plank and Einstein, that solved the stability problem of Rutherford model. Debroglie came into the scene much later to propose wave nature of particles (reverse of what Einstein had shown that waves behave like particles in photoelectric effect) which also fitting solved the stability problem of Rutherford model..
Omg the atom is so beautiful, real wonders of the world. And there are so many other things around ! And there are even smaller things inside. I am really surprised what I have learned here :-)
I need more 'thought experiment' insights into the nature of the universe. Something about your description of waves, orbital levels, and photon emission tugged naggingly at the base of my mind.
I'm sorry but this isn't the entire Universe inside an atom like the thumbnail says. Instead it's just "history of atom" or some such more comparatively very boring thing.
14:30 It's not particles. They're waves. It's a MODE. Switching a neutron to a proton, as a MODE, requires 80x the energy of a proton. It'd be like the amount of energy required to change a string vibrating at one Mode and "physically" changing the length of the string until it fits to the next mode. "physically changing the mode" by physically changing space-time itself, from a neutron to a proton. "gluons" aren't particles either. It's much easier to understand them as "MODES" of a resonating sphere. Up vs Down (other quarks) are "qualities" of the resonance. It's like the harmonics of electron shells.
"It's not particles. They're waves. " It's both - or more correctly, it''s neither, but it can behave as both. "Switching a neutron to a proton, as a MODE, requires 80x the energy of a proton." Err - no? Where did you get this completely wrong number from? Actually, neutrons decay to protons all by themselves, that does not require any energy at all. And switching a proton to a neutron requires only about 0,0014 times the energy of a proton, not 80 times. ""gluons" aren't particles either. It's much easier to understand them as "MODES" of a resonating sphere." Show your math.
This video focused a lot on the weak force’s role in radioactive decay, but it’s much more than that. It wasn’t explicitly stated that the weak force normally swaps protons and neutrons with one another, even in lighter elements. It also wasn’t explicitly stated that weak interaction can occur between electrons and neutrinos as well, allowing neutrinos to rarely transfer some of their energy to an electron by exchanging a neutral Z gauge boson. That’s how neutrinos were first detected.
Alvin's videos have become amazing in the last 3 yrs. Another great video! One point about the title: it's genius, and almost click-baity (but isn't). It's 100% correct. His title plays with vagueness in our language, using the word "inside". I (and maybe others too) assumed the video would posit that a Quantum-based Universe akin to our own Universe (the one with our galaxy) is inside every atom. Maybe a new version on the multiverse concept? Nope. Instead, his title was saying (and he showed) that every facet of "quantum-ness" (force-carriers & field-particles) exists inside every atom.
It's okay to admit the title is clickbaity. The clever use of semantic trickery doesn't absolve it from that. And the thumbnail text doesn't even have that excuse. "The universe is an atom"? How are we supposed to parse that statement and brush it off as vagueness of language?
Two questions: 1. Why should an electron orbiting the nucleus be subjected to acceleration (4min:34sec)? Just as a satellite orbits the earth at a constant speed, so should an electron orbit at a constant speed. 2. How would an electron lose charge when it is quantized? At its lowest level, it is 1eV and it cannot lose it because then it would no longer be an electron.
A constant change in direction (or speed) results in acceleration. If you stand on a Merry-go-round going at constant speed, you will feel an acceleration that will push you away from its center. Not sure what question2 means. Electron does not lose its charge. it would lose its energy if undergoing acceleration in the form of photons. But it does not because it is not a ball, it is a wave.
Excellent video Arvin as usual. You really put in the work and it pays off. We all learn from you. I just have one rhing for consideration. As Einstein has revealed gravity is not a force but is the very curvature of apace itself. Yet, the force of gravity does exist as Newton's calculations show us. So, alrhough closely related, there is a difference between gravity and the force "of" gravity. It seems that gravity is the curvature, and even motion, of and in fields of space. However, the force "of" gravity is the influence and momentum of such curvature that moves energy, mass, and matter. Like the difference between the curvature of ones hand or fist compared to that curvature moving against an object. A sibtle difference but different non-the-less.
You will hear most physicists refer to "the force of gravity" - as it behaves just like any other force would. While Einstein indeed modeled gravity via the mathematics of geometry, he himself did not consider this to represent the true nature of gravity, but a model. He called this geometriztion a "crutch" and warned not to take is as truth. All the other forces can be modeled geometrically also, but since gravity affects everything with mass and energy, and not just charges, it is treated differently. General Relativity is not the final theory of gravity because it is incomplete as it cannot be used to model behavior at quantum scales. Most physicists believe that a quantum theory of gravity is yet to be discovered which would be complete and show it to be a fundamental force like the other 3.
What I would like to know more about is the specific relationship between photons and electrons, as these two objects also interact when there is no proton present, creating an interaction known as compton scattering. But, photons aren't known to interact with protons in any special way like this. At most, they can simply exchange momentum, but there is little else involved in these interactions. Compton scattering is absolutely fascinating, and seems to suggest a strong relationship between photons and electrons.
Easiest unsub of my life. The way you defend exploitative AI technology in the comments, you would have us believe you couldn't have just monetized educational content with a BetterHelp or RAID: Shadow Legends or NordVPN or Nebula sponsorship deal instead. There are so many options, and you voluntarily chose the most slimy one available.
@@lordgarion514 They are not the same, and you know it. Just because your beloved AI is a tool doesn’t mean you have to be a tool too. You weird nerds are desperate to send society spiraling into a technocracy built upon the exploitation of millions of artists, writers, models, and people in general… just as long as you are one of the earliest adopters and stand the most to gain from the uncredited, uncompensated exploitation of their hard work. Harder work than some talentless and uncreative loser desperate to normalize his reliance on AI (trained on stolen assets and labor) has ever worked in his life, certainly. You have no criticism of this exploitation of talented and creative people because you have never been talented at anything in your life. You are a leech of others’ imaginations, a parasite in dire need of a fat host like AI to churn out a veneered masterpiece of slop.
Wait, I'm confused.. you said it takes you and a team a month to produce a video,costing you thousands.. but then goes on to say INVIDEO AI,can make the same video ,all by itself..
Support our channel. Try InVideo AI for FREE here: invideo.io/i/ArvinAsh This will save you hundreds of dollars that you would otherwise spend on editing, animating and other production costs.
LOVE YOU BROTHER ❤️❤️❤️❤️🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
LMAO Simpsons did it th-cam.com/video/ycvlJ9XMd94/w-d-xo.html
I can not understand the following in the Rutherford experiment, please help me if you can.
Which material he used as fluorescent which lights up with alpha particles/Helium? Why are we not using them to detect alpha particles?
How did he manage to make the alpha particles to eject like a laser in a narrow beam?
What of the dollar you sold us for? Is that the one fighting for your soul?
You said the strong force is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism at the nucleon binding scale... Is it more than just coincidence that that's 1 over the fine constant? Does the fine constant somehow determine the crossover distance between electronmagnetic dominance and strong force dominance?
A bit of Blake came to mind while watching this fascinating video: “
“To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour”
That's wonderful ! Thank you for that 🌟
One of the greatest quotes ever, imo!
Just what I was thinking. Thanks for posting.
If one understands enough by having had sufficient STEM learning, this poem is very literal indeed.
You have rescued Arvin's video from the dust bin of boring click-bait material. A wonderful quote. You have demonstrated a very open and compassionate interpretation of this steaming pile of 'trying the viewer's patience.'
this is what i thought many years ago when i was kid about our universe that its an atom in a massive universe and so on.. forever
Except its not forever
@sunUK20 it is pal
@teecchnoboy not because you just say so..
Did you really watch the video?
@ yes Im a professor and doctor and lawyer at same time
For a lifelong science follower with only a high school education, this might be the best explanation I've seen for me anyway. Thanks.
Dont be ignorant
"The Church of the Children of Atom is based on the idea that each single atomic mass contains within it an entire universe!"
- Confessor Cromwell (Fallout 3)
That's such a stupid concept, and yet it keeps circling the drain, refusing to go down...
Epic game
See also Ludwig Plutonium's "Atom Totallity"
@JosBergervoet I remember Archimedes Plutonium. The internet in the 90s....
Well, ...crap, of course, ...but a damn sight more interesting than this video!
After several months break, I have returned to your channel. I have thoroughly enjoyed the talk, as ever.👍
wow Arvin incredible work my friend! truly amazing
Do not be ignorant
@Steve-n8q what was that supposed to mean?
Paraphrasing Niels Bohr "A physicist is just an universe's way of looking at itself" ;)
Great video!
That was fascinating. Thanks so much for the excellent videos.
Given the title, I was expecting some wild-hair explanation of cosmic scale. Imagine my - pleasant - surprise when you embarked on a succinct history of atoms that melded seamlessly with a clear description of sub-atomic particles as we know them today, then blending into quantum physics. Very nice!
Oh, you mean the clickbait title?!
The fact that the entire universe turned out to be made of waves...
....and they were all waving "HELLO!" 😶
Cheese. It’s made out of cheese. We went over this already.
...yes??
Reality wavefront.
@@ParedCheese"Yoohoo, hello big boy" - Universe
This was the best succinct explanation of the fundamental forces I’ve heard on TH-cam - thanks!
Great video! Thank you for putting it together… it reminded me (and taught me) a few new things. Thank you and your team for educating the masses you are doing a great job!
Every single one of Arvin Ash's video starts off on a subject that I have heard and seen countless times before in many other videos,
but without a single exception, Arvin Ash always introduces new (new to me, I mean) ideas in physics that I have not heard of before or considered before.
For example, YOU are the ONLY science communicator I have found so far who asks the question "Why is the weak force called a force?"
I have long wanted an answer to that question. And I never knew that beta decay is less common than alpha decay, let alone much less common.
Bravo!
Thank you! I'm delighted to hear that you got something out of it.
What is amazing is that we've proved atoms exist, the outside of it is a cloud of electron/s and the core has gluons and quarks.
This is mind-bogglingly amazing.
Shout out to Cern.
*SLAC
@noelstarchild I agree, it's truly amazing we've figured out so many specific aspects. With still lots more to uncover. You describe a "cloud of electron/s" around an atomic nucleus. To clarify, there's no such cloud. People hold onto this false image, but electron locations correctly are described by a *_probability cloud,_* not a physical cloud.
This makes it harder to visualize, because now it's accepted that each electron "pops-in" and "-out" of a location, and doesn't move linearly from one location to another within its valence shell. They don't "fly through" 3D space. They move through 4D space (3D+time), making them seem to disappear/reappear.
We also learn about the association between the bosons. How important are they? Atoms also connect with the universe via its influence on gravity as they mass together in space.
@@keep-ukraine-free how is that different? What is a “probability cloud”? Vs whatever you said it replaced? Whatever you do for an electron in an atom doesn’t work for a quark in a nucleon.
@@DrDeuteron"Whatever you do for an electron in an atom doesn’t work for a quark in a nucleon."
Why not? The behaviour of quarks in nucleons is ruled by a different force, true, but both can be described by quantum field theories.
This title expresses my view since I was young. We are nothing! Absolutely nothing. We are only important because we can say it.
self consciousness is very much real.
@ as long as you exist.
@@michaelangelo7511 once you know your true self you become immortal
We are everything! If there was no us, there'd be nothing..
@ From a reverse perspective you are 100% correct. All that exists only exists because we exist. 👍🏻🇺🇸
Your videos are fantastic! Thank you for creating them ❤
Excellent production and content. Thank you.
Except it is wrong
This was one of your best videos! Thank you so much
This is so much clearer than anything I was taught in Physics when I was a teenager in the 1960s.
We had a saying in the 1970's! "Up and at 'em, Atom Ant!" Peace!
Ha, I am old enough to remember those cartoons!
This one is definitely one of my favorite videos now!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Just perfect. Precious and perfectly well structured. Undersatble for anyone. Fascinating. Indeed.
Amazing video, Alvin! Thank you.
Excellent video...very clear and concise and to the point. no filler or bs
Hi grats on 1mill subs , I remember when this channel was new .
I really learned a lot in this video, so much has changed since my high school science classes in 1977 haha.
Invaluable info and the presentation is ON POINT. I mean, even I understood it, such good free teaching, right here
What can’t be inside the atom but exists on the macroscopic universe:
- Navier-Stokes equations: governing fluid dynamics
- Fluid Mechanics
- Ohm’s Law
Everything else may have microscopic-realm equivalents (I just don’t know if all of them would eventually happen inside an atom)
You're on the right path IMO. This idea of an atom being a universe is universally stupid. It's academic only, that is to say an unimportant flight of fancy, or the second definition of academic.
Instead of downright accepting or rejecting an idea let's try to keep an open mind. After all as a human civilization we have barely scratched the surface of the knowledge about atoms and subatomic particles. What we have are mathematical models that fit the data points. But true knowledge and mechanism of how it all works still eludes us.
Instead of downright accepting or rejecting an idea let's try to keep an open mind. After all as a human civilization we have barely scratched the surface of the knowledge about atoms and subatomic particles. What we have are mathematical models that fit the data points. But true knowledge and mechanism of how it all works still eludes us.
Excellent Video as always.
I can never escape it, even in the universe itself it's unavoidable.
That old enemy of mine; maths.
get yourself a restraining order
Original sin.
Building something that can move at the speed of light would gain so much mass it would turn itself inside out.
To break free from the boundaries of our universe we would have to make something that could expand but if were to use it, this means we would have to destroy this one to get too the next.
The best and effective plan would be to live in harmony with the world we live within.
@@b00ts4ndc4ts Only if relativity is a complete description, and it's not that's why there are singularities. Now what is wrong with it is beyond me, so spare me the " you think you're smarter einstein quips."
Math
This has helped me understand quarks more. Thanks! 👍👍
I've been saying as much ever since I was a kid, comparing the solar system to an atom and using it as a representative model that exactly fits the form
Did you really watch the video?
An atom looks nothing like the solar system.
Also, you didn’t watch the video.
Our whole mind runs on analogies.
It’s amazing the level of analogies we have to explain the world around us. There’s all these maths to understand, yet everything is easiest to explained as an apple, or as a color, or something that is relative to our understanding.
If you swap the first and last letter of your username, it becomes a very interesting username
@ yes it’s had some awkward moments on Xbox live for sure being called Ligger.
Nice video😊
That was a cool video - putting it all together.
Have imagined this for years
Great video! 🌟
This video is really high quality
Awesome video, Arvin!
I liked this explainer. Thx, Arvin.
One thing funny though is one of the sound effects. I think you ripped the sound of upgrading a skill in Skyrim.
As per the ad, it's AI generated. So it's possible🤷
Supremely explained workings of the inner workings of an atom, just mind-blowing Arvin as my brain is still picking up the pieces..... now that you've so eloquently explained the inner working of an atom including the sub-atomic world, we just now need a explained and written formula 'with visuals' of how general relativity and quantum physics the two fundamental theories in physics and best describing the different scales of the universe work together in one simple sum and equation!
Fantastic work Arvin. University level stuff here. My only gripe would be there is so much here and you could break these down into smaller bite sizes and really nail the focus of these videos-like have a whole 15 min vid on gluons and strong force. Overall, amazing work.
Good suggestion. I was thinking of actually making shorter videos but on just one focused topic. Any thoughts on that?
@ absolutely. I’ve started my own channel and like the 10-15 min segments. Maybe do a whole section on sub atomic particles. I believe there are 17 confirmed? Would be cool to break down gluons, quarks, and even hypothetical particles like tachyons.
@@ArvinAshI have thought for some time that the Science Communicators on YT should do exactly as OP said - theres so much ‘good stuff’ in videos like this, too much really. It can be overwhelming, and I am sure we only retain a fraction of it. I would love to see videos breaking this down into smaller chunks and really hammering home on one or two points. For me personally, I prefer the longer videos, and hearing the same thing explained in different ways is good too as everyone has different learning styles. Thats my 2 cents - love your videos - your animations are great 👍🏼
I'm pretty sure he has videos on all these concepts from earlier in his videography, everything I saw in this video I feel like I've seen covered by previous videos, just go watch everything he's ever posted 😂 it's worth it
@@sachiekat1238 Yes, I have a detailed video on all these concepts. What I didn't have is ONE video that goes over all the concepts at a higher level. That was the purpose of this video - to put everything together in a one (hopefully) succinct video.
Thanks for sharing this ~
A perfect intellectual and a gentle teacher
Thanks for the knowledge!
Nice perspective summarizing the universe from an atom. Democritus would be proud.
Thanks🎉 so much for the video❤
11:47 why doesn't the meson imdiately anhiliate itself when coming into contact with its anti particle counter part ?
I was wonering exactly the same!
I think the answer is also in the vodeo, they are locked inside the nucleus of an atom.
Great question. They do annihilate eventually. But for the most part, they last long enough for the strong nuclear force to take effect. This is why this force works only at very small distances. Certain charged pions last longer than neutral one. But they all eventually decay. I made a couple of videos looking at the details of how the strong force works if you're interested in learning more.
"why doesn't the meson imdiately anhiliate itself when coming into contact with its anti particle counter part ?"
Huh? At 11:47 in the video, there is only a meson, no anti-meson is seen anywhere.
@JcoleMc Watch The Highlander and you will get your answer.
It's funny that I've given this exact lecture to friends before watching this video 😂 It's amazing to me that everything is mostly empty space and that even the mass of everything is mostly just the energy from the strong force. I love to see people's eyes as they understand this! 🤯
with no comparison to the outside universe, we could be smaller than an atom compared to anything else out there.
true. it's all relative. But there is nothing that's "outside" the known universe. Even outside the visible universe, there would be just more universe.
Our universe is jsut an atom in a larger universe. And that universe is just an atom in an even bigger universe. And it's turtles all the way up lol
@@ArvinAsh thank you for you comment
@ love that story from Hawking.
@@ArvinAsh Nobody can be sure about "there is nothing outside our universe". There might be much bigger forces and bodies out there, besides "similar" universes like ours.
well done
Medium rare
The thing I don't understand about the strong nuclear force and the exchange of gluons, at least based on the visualization you're showing of little 'balls' bouncing back and forth between quarks. It would seem like the kinetic energy of 'little balls' bouncing back and forth would actually push the quarks apart instead of pulling them together. If I throw a ball at an object, the kinetic energy of the ball would push the object away from my, not pull it toward me. So it's really hard to wrap my head around that this is how it works at the subatomic scale.
what if the ball has negative energy, zero energy and negative momentum?
That's an excellent observation and question. The main thing you have to realize is that just like the role of photons as carriers of the electromagnetic force, gluons as carries of the strong force are VIRTUAL particles. This means that they cannot be directly observed or measured like REAL particles. They exist only momentarily, and serve to exchange color charges, just like virtual photons serve to exchange electromagnetic charges. So they are not exchanging momentum, only charges. Charge exchange is what creates an attractive force in quantum mechanics - whether that force is electromagnetic or strong force. In addition, while we use "little ball-like" objects to illustrate gluons and photons, they are not literally balls. They are quantum waves.
@@ArvinAsh Interesting. Thanks for the reply and explanation. That does make a little more sense, but still hard for me to wrap my head around. Cheers!
@@ArvinAsh
"So they are not exchanging momentum"
Why not? Virtual photons (and gluons) carry momentum, too.
"just like virtual photons serve to exchange electromagnetic charges ... Charge exchange is what creates an attractive force in quantum mechanics - whether that force is electromagnetic or strong force."
Huh? So you say that a positron and an electron attract each other because photons exchange charge between the two?! What is that even supposed to mean? Do you want to imply that the charges of the electron and the positron changes each time they exchange a photon?
Wow, deep. Hooray Arvin!
Well done! .... And your graphics are excellent. I know what goes into video productions like this.
great vid!
8:08 - I'm amazed at the flexibility of those astronaut's legs! 😁
Good summary of the universal forces as we understand them.
Thanks to the sponsor for more of the dead internet grifters, soon youtube will be a wasteland.
Great presentation! ^.^
Supporting an AI video production company as a person making these sorts of videos is bonkers
Lol. I get where you're coming from. I feel it's great for people who don't have the resources to make the kinds of videos we do. I feel it's coming whether we like it or not, so why not promote the best platforms for it, like InVideo? It's really good for short videos on certain subjects. Try it out and let me know what you think. I was impressed so I don't mind promoting a good product.
This is where the true strength and value of AI shines. It allows the single person to have the skills and capabilities of an entire production team composed of thousands, each with various skill sets. Even way above average looks and way above average speaking skills becomes available to the single person, even allowing an individual to possess artistic skills that only exist in the top hundredth of the top one percent of humans living today. Not possible right now but soon the true creative genius of a person can be accomplished if the person strives and uses the tools that will be available. This is the side of AI where true productivity will blossom and costs be driven down. It also probably means that selectivity will ratchet upwards as only the sublime will be accepted and lesser productions will be eschewed. Still millions of people striving for the sublime will mean the very best will be rewarded, with lesser rewards being bestowed upon the second runner up and so on.
"Oh no the machines are taking peoples jobs" AGAIN. It's because we use the tech we have, like the machines in every assembly line and factory, that people are freed up to do other specialized jobs and that we even got here in the first place. All I hear with complaints about AI is that we should still be using human labor to plow fields instead of tractors 🤦
@ArvinAsh don't think anyone should be making these kinds of videos without hiring fact checkers and experts, and the idea of promoting a cheap, fast, expert-free way to make pseudoscientidic videos that will make it impossible for legitimate videos to be viewed is the exact problem with TH-cam and AI in general. Not to mention the ethics of training their models videos like those uploaded here without the creator's consent.
@@mattdangerg The data used to train AI models being copyright material is already beginning to come up in lawsuits and is being looked at closely for the procedures used and the outcomes. Still people are very judgemental and sloppy production will not be rewarded with views, subscriptions, or likes. The cream always rises to the top in the end.
Great video!!!!!!!
Hey Arvin, love your videos!!
Great passion! I appreciate the effort put into introducing QED and chromodynamics. Most people don’t have the privilege to study these concepts.
Electrons absorbing photons is weird don't you think? Think about it, photons are moving really fast and electrons are really small, do they "capture" photons somehow? if not wouldn't most photons just be gone forever? what is the mechanism behind this? Is it "pulling" the electron out?
photons are just perturbations in a quantum field
Photons are quantized electromagnetic radiation.
So the electromagnetic wave comes and passes through the electron. The electron is accelerated by the electromagnetic wave, and consequently emits its own electromagnetic wave. It turns out that the electromagnetic wave from the electron is most likely to be in precisely opposite phase to the incident electromagnetic wave. There's the "photon disappears" part of absorption.
@@takisk.7698The photon is a point particle and an electron is really small so the likelihood the photon hits the electron in a traditional physical way is very low. I think that is what the original comment meant.
@@MrCoffisPhotons really aren't point particles like electrons. Photons are waves. A wave of the electromagnetic field. It's only when a measurement device like an eye (an eye made of atoms...all of which have electrons ready and waiting to be engaged) that a propagating spherical EM wave (photon) finally comes into contact with an electron in said object that the wave collapses into a point. No electron, no collapse, no point. The bulk of a photon's life is comprised of it being a wave. Looking at only its state upon death can lead many people astray. Its active life of carrying energy as a wave is what's of vital import.
An electron doesn't really absorb a photon. It's not like an electron subsumes a photon and therein becomes (for some brief, short time) a composite entity. The electron just responds to and facilitates the incoming energy of the photon.
@@MrCoffis I'm must correct you, sorry. I'm a theoretical physicist with a main focus on astrophysics, chaos theory and Holography.
1st: An electron is most of all a field around the nucleus. And light is first and foremost a wave/field.
You simply can't use classical thinking about photons and electrons. Their interaction is first and foremost governed by their interferent co-inciding frequencies.
You simply can't reduce electrons to a point particle. In reality electrons and their orbits should be looked upon as "layers of onion" around the nucleus.
And you also can't use a quantized definition regarding light. It only behaves as a photon when we measure it. This is also one of the fundamental properties that makes lux v constant. You simply can't measure a *field* of light to determine its speed or position if you don't know the source. Light is spherical by definition, so light emitted from a sun is *everywhere*at once, not causally localized to a "beam of light".
Light behaves in counterintuitive ways, that is why Einstein was so revolutionary, because no one understood the causality of light propagation properly before him.
2nd: Light=wave=frequency hits the electron shell(s) and excites them and the inherent properties of the material will determine the energy release speed and the amount of energy that will be returned to the system. Light excites electrons, which is a field itself.
Fundamentally, we should stop using point analogies in physics. It's only relevant when we need to learn about properties in physicality. When you understand that all particles, all energy, all phenomena, all polarities and even space itself = holographic - thus made of light - you will get deeper insights into physics and math that is well beyond classical and even QM/QFT, because they are also ultimately functions of holographic principles.
v=d-(t³c³)
6.25 Hexyocto Hz
0.00087Vp/0.38 Zs
HH
HtH
PQE
RtV
HyH
EAHT/HP
If you want to know more what this is, I'd be happy to post you a 4 parter that will literally blow your mind. In the best possible way.
💫💫💃🐬❤️🐬💃💫💫
Excellent content 💪
Subscription earned. Very well presented information.
i think we should call the four fundamental forces as four fundamental properties of matter. it gives more meaning about the force rather than misunderstanding it with physical push pull force. 🤔
Katho Upanishad verse 20 - "sanskrit
"Anoh aniyan - Mahato mahiyan" translated as
Finer than the fine, huger than the huge the Self hides in the secret heart
"What we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning"
W. Heisenberg
In short to me, our (doubting) Mind
Good quote!
To make matters worse I just learned the math involved in the probabilities of where an electron wave form is located, allows the electron wave form to be as close to the atom as the plank length and still possible to be as far as hundreds, thousands, or millions of light years away and still be part of the atom. Of course the probabilities of the electron wave form being that far away grows infinitesimally smaller as the distance increases. Still even being possible shatters my little bitty mind.
put your mind back together, because the electron cannot be a gazillion ly away. Yes, the standard atomic wave functions are non-zero at those distances (roughly 1/exp(10^28)), but those are non-relativistic approximations that don't work at those ranges.
Very good video. Thx for that 👍
I would love for someone to untangle which particle really exists as "we can observe them doing stuff" and invented particles like "they have to exist, otherwise our math wont work out".
Try and remember that the math always works, as in 100% of the time. When folks say the math doesn't work, what they mean is. "My math is not predicting what I see, but the math itself it's flawless." Take the geocentric theory of the universe, the math worked flawlessly, despite the theory being 100% wrong.
We navigated the entire globe thinking it was the center universe, we predicted false orbits around the earth the same way. When the observation's didn't conform over the generations, we added new math, claimed it as a discovery, and declared geocentrism "saved"
Another way to sort of wrap your head around this concept is to look at video games. In video games physics is a suggestion. Mario can control his trajectory in mid air, gravity is also variable for him, etc... The math behind mario's physics is 100% correct, however; in reality gravity doesn't work the way it does for mario, but the math that describes his gravity is 100% correct, as all math is.
" I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space" ~ Hamlet
I used to wonder if every time there is fire/an explosion of any kind (fireworks, lighting a match, etc) we are creating Big Bangs and mini universes. The thing burns out quickly for us, as observers of our world, but maybe the scale is "different" for those things "created" by it.
My dad used to tell me Everytime I said a cuss word god killed a kitten.
Hey AA & team, I love to sleep listening to your vids, thank you for the quality content
“No the universe isn’t an atom” - people that didn’t watch the video.
Particles don't exist anymore than a sample rate can be put in your pocket. It's a value. That's it. The particle is this detector.
People who did watch the video would also come to that conclusion. Did you?
Pointing out that the universe isn't an atom seems sensible enough. Are you implying that it is, as the thumbnail text unambiguously claims? What part of the video supports that claim?
😂
It really isn't an atom. It is in fact a membrane.
Size is just a matter of perspective. The entire universe is just an Atom... and another big bang might be just around the corner. You never when everything will explode and become ridiculously huge.
"You might be wondering what it takes to produce videos like this"
I assure you, I was not.
Then this is not applicable to you, this is only for those who might be wondering, so you didn't have to say that you're not one of those.
@@djelalhassan7631 Thank you for standing up for advertisements within videos. Hopefully we'll get more embedded within them.
@@d.c.9012Sponsors are better for the content creator than ads injected by youtube. High quality content like this channel is expensive to produce, like he said in the sponsor message. If you like getting content like this for free, thank the content creator's sponsors for that.
@@djelalhassan7631
But I was wondering whether Ryan Eglitis had wondered.. ergo, all falls to the positive. 🙃
@nyrdybyrd1702 I got you
Interesting. You managed to throw in how spectral analysis works as a little tidbit. Very nice.
I'm not joking when I say I've had this theory every since I read an Arthur C Clarke collection of short stories in 1988. The Universe is a Fractal Atom
Every video by every science communication channel, every single one, has at least one or two comments that pop up immediately after a video comes out.
*strokes chin thoughtfully...
"Ah yes, I see that my theory (that I came up with while watching the Outer Limits) has been proven to be correct. I had always hypothesized this to my various doubters, but they didn't believe me. Now I am proven correct." 🤣
@@Deletiriumagreed, felt it, seen it, laughed at it, at myself, and past all that - still love that it happens to me and in general. Keeps us engaged.
@@Deletirium Daniel's hypotheses, like those of Clarke's are fractals of science communication.
Perhaps you should watch the entire video before jumping to any conclusion 😂
that's not what this video says. it's more of a figurative way of speech for clickbait for idiots like you.
The video is good..
However, the mention of Bohr model is missing in the chronology of atom model definitions over the years..
It was Bohr's model, based on quantum hypothesis by Plank and Einstein, that solved the stability problem of Rutherford model. Debroglie came into the scene much later to propose wave nature of particles (reverse of what Einstein had shown that waves behave like particles in photoelectric effect) which also fitting solved the stability problem of Rutherford model..
Omg the atom is so beautiful, real wonders of the world. And there are so many other things around ! And there are even smaller things inside. I am really surprised what I have learned here :-)
I need more 'thought experiment' insights into the nature of the universe. Something about your description of waves, orbital levels, and photon emission tugged naggingly at the base of my mind.
I'm sorry but this isn't the entire Universe inside an atom like the thumbnail says.
Instead it's just "history of atom" or some such more comparatively very boring thing.
physics combined with history must be the most boring thing in the whole universe
said no one ever
@@poppers7317 That's not what he's saying. It's boring compared to the title and thumbnail, it's simply just bait.
Amazing video
14:30 It's not particles. They're waves. It's a MODE. Switching a neutron to a proton, as a MODE, requires 80x the energy of a proton. It'd be like the amount of energy required to change a string vibrating at one Mode and "physically" changing the length of the string until it fits to the next mode. "physically changing the mode" by physically changing space-time itself, from a neutron to a proton. "gluons" aren't particles either. It's much easier to understand them as "MODES" of a resonating sphere. Up vs Down (other quarks) are "qualities" of the resonance. It's like the harmonics of electron shells.
Correct. I do think though that for visualization these terms are not so intuitive.
LOL! You know not!
"It's not particles. They're waves. "
It's both - or more correctly, it''s neither, but it can behave as both.
"Switching a neutron to a proton, as a MODE, requires 80x the energy of a proton."
Err - no? Where did you get this completely wrong number from? Actually, neutrons decay to protons all by themselves, that does not require any energy at all. And switching a proton to a neutron requires only about 0,0014 times the energy of a proton, not 80 times.
""gluons" aren't particles either. It's much easier to understand them as "MODES" of a resonating sphere."
Show your math.
This video focused a lot on the weak force’s role in radioactive decay, but it’s much more than that. It wasn’t explicitly stated that the weak force normally swaps protons and neutrons with one another, even in lighter elements. It also wasn’t explicitly stated that weak interaction can occur between electrons and neutrinos as well, allowing neutrinos to rarely transfer some of their energy to an electron by exchanging a neutral Z gauge boson. That’s how neutrinos were first detected.
Alvin's videos have become amazing in the last 3 yrs. Another great video! One point about the title: it's genius, and almost click-baity (but isn't). It's 100% correct. His title plays with vagueness in our language, using the word "inside". I (and maybe others too) assumed the video would posit that a Quantum-based Universe akin to our own Universe (the one with our galaxy) is inside every atom. Maybe a new version on the multiverse concept? Nope.
Instead, his title was saying (and he showed) that every facet of "quantum-ness" (force-carriers & field-particles) exists inside every atom.
I totally thought that too.
It's okay to admit the title is clickbaity. The clever use of semantic trickery doesn't absolve it from that.
And the thumbnail text doesn't even have that excuse. "The universe is an atom"? How are we supposed to parse that statement and brush it off as vagueness of language?
Two questions:
1. Why should an electron orbiting the nucleus be subjected to acceleration (4min:34sec)? Just as a satellite orbits the earth at a constant speed, so should an electron orbit at a constant speed.
2. How would an electron lose charge when it is quantized? At its lowest level, it is 1eV and it cannot lose it because then it would no longer be an electron.
A constant change in direction (or speed) results in acceleration. If you stand on a Merry-go-round going at constant speed, you will feel an acceleration that will push you away from its center. Not sure what question2 means. Electron does not lose its charge. it would lose its energy if undergoing acceleration in the form of photons. But it does not because it is not a ball, it is a wave.
@@ArvinAsh Thank you
Hi 🌷 Arvin You are a Great Teacher.
Respect from Pakistan 🇵🇰
Mr Ash: 8 mins passed but still I am unable to get any info regarding the topic of this video..All info is repetitive
Excellent video Arvin as usual. You really put in the work and it pays off. We all learn from you.
I just have one rhing for consideration. As Einstein has revealed gravity is not a force but is the very curvature of apace itself. Yet, the force of gravity does exist as Newton's calculations show us. So, alrhough closely related, there is a difference between gravity and the force "of" gravity.
It seems that gravity is the curvature, and even motion, of and in fields of space.
However, the force "of" gravity is the influence and momentum of such curvature that moves energy, mass, and matter.
Like the difference between the curvature of ones hand or fist compared to that curvature moving against an object. A sibtle difference but different non-the-less.
You will hear most physicists refer to "the force of gravity" - as it behaves just like any other force would. While Einstein indeed modeled gravity via the mathematics of geometry, he himself did not consider this to represent the true nature of gravity, but a model. He called this geometriztion a "crutch" and warned not to take is as truth. All the other forces can be modeled geometrically also, but since gravity affects everything with mass and energy, and not just charges, it is treated differently. General Relativity is not the final theory of gravity because it is incomplete as it cannot be used to model behavior at quantum scales. Most physicists believe that a quantum theory of gravity is yet to be discovered which would be complete and show it to be a fundamental force like the other 3.
AI 👎
What I would like to know more about is the specific relationship between photons and electrons, as these two objects also interact when there is no proton present, creating an interaction known as compton scattering. But, photons aren't known to interact with protons in any special way like this. At most, they can simply exchange momentum, but there is little else involved in these interactions. Compton scattering is absolutely fascinating, and seems to suggest a strong relationship between photons and electrons.
there is a very specific relationship: en [dot] wikipedia [dot] org [slash] wiki [slash] Quantum_electrodynamics
Easiest unsub of my life. The way you defend exploitative AI technology in the comments, you would have us believe you couldn't have just monetized educational content with a BetterHelp or RAID: Shadow Legends or NordVPN or Nebula sponsorship deal instead. There are so many options, and you voluntarily chose the most slimy one available.
Gay
What he's advertising it does, is no different than the machines of the industrial revolution.
Quit being a Luddite.
@@lordgarion514 They are not the same, and you know it. Just because your beloved AI is a tool doesn’t mean you have to be a tool too. You weird nerds are desperate to send society spiraling into a technocracy built upon the exploitation of millions of artists, writers, models, and people in general… just as long as you are one of the earliest adopters and stand the most to gain from the uncredited, uncompensated exploitation of their hard work. Harder work than some talentless and uncreative loser desperate to normalize his reliance on AI (trained on stolen assets and labor) has ever worked in his life, certainly.
You have no criticism of this exploitation of talented and creative people because you have never been talented at anything in your life. You are a leech of others’ imaginations, a parasite in dire need of a fat host like AI to churn out a veneered masterpiece of slop.
Very nice video. Thanks.
Wait, I'm confused.. you said it takes you and a team a month to produce a video,costing you thousands.. but then goes on to say INVIDEO AI,can make the same video ,all by itself..
AI sucks but if they offer to pay you stupid money, you take it. Knowing your audience gets that it's stupid but they know you gotta eat.
The fact we assign flavors and colors to objects we can not even theoretically see shows our brain is at it's limit 🙈
I tend to think it shows our brain's limitless imagination.
@@ArvinAsh yeah, also a way to put it. Thing is, such discussions always end up philosophical 😄
are you sure about that?